McLachlan’s actions meet test of traitor

On Feb. 27, The Durango Herald editorial criticized Colorado Accountability for calling Rep. Mike McLachlan a traitor, suggesting that he does not deserve that moniker and that it exemplifies nastiness. The left always holds conservatives, constitutionalists, libertarians and anybody else with views more right than theirs to a higher standard when it comes to political rhetoric. However, it’s always interesting to look up the definitions of even common words to see how Webster, Cambridge, Oxford and other dictionaries define the English language. It’s frequently enlightening.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a traitor as:

1) one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty

2) one who commits treason

Cambridge Dictionary: a person who is not loyal or stops being loyal to his or her own country, social class or beliefs

Oxford Dictionary: a person who betrays a friend, country or principle

Only Merriam-Webster includes as a second definition a relationship to treason, of which there was no mention by Colorado Accountability.

McLachlan states on the “Issues” tab of his website a commitment to the Second Amendment. “Mike supports the Second Amendment and the rights of all gun owners.” It was overwhelmingly evident from the turnout at his listening session last month that a majority of his constituents feel betrayed by his lack of commitment.

McLachlan claims to be a centrist, yet he voted the party line when three Democrats did not.

He claims to want a conversation, yet he does this only after voting in the Judiciary Committee and the House.

He claims that he will now support a 30-round magazine limit. Yet he does this only after proposing and voting on the 15-round compromise and the opportunity for him to influence this issue has passed.

If these acts do not exemplify betrayal and disloyalty to his constituents and his own statements, then I suggest the Herald needs to start its own dictionary.